To that individual anything that goes wrong is one too many faults. But if you have figures to say that private care is actually better in percentage terms it would be nice to have them. There is plenty of evidence of private hospitals making a bodge of treatment. And private nursing homes treating their residents badly.
To quote Eddie Mair - no.
Many. And have had as many different answers about what is currently in use from them. That was the purpose of the e-mail. And I'd guess they asked their studio engineers who didn't know for certain either.
I know the original mics were STC 'apple and biscuit' omni directional - one and a spare, each with its own circuit to both BH and Bush House. I've got that from an old BBC handbook, with pics. But I remember *hearing* they were changed for AKG D202 - similar to the mics you see on the desk in parliament on the prime minister etc - when everything went stereo in the late '80s. But no one can confirm or deny this.
I'd guess - not having seen them - that whatever they are - are enclosed in a large 'windshield' to protect them from the elements, so short of dismantling could be anyone of hundreds of makes in there. You don't need an expensive highly directional condenser mic for this use - just something half decent and above all reliable.
Except that there is a counterexample to your own; food. Why should the rich be able to buy better food than the poor?
Isn`t this where the thread first started - how privatisation lead to the profitable bits being sold off at a premium, non-profitable bits being ignored, and the overall effect being to the detriment to the customer ?
That's not what I was saying.
As things stand, employed and self employed individuals and employers pay huge sums into the state system.
I don't feel that the state system provides healthcare in a timely way and to obtain certain kinds of care and facilities involves a very long wait if it's available at all. In several instances over the last few years where I have required consultations, the lead time would have been lengthy and no flexibility on appointment dates and times was possible. The budgets and treatment are allocated based on criteria that are opaque to the patient, but a little research on the internet with respect to NHS policies reveals that treatment is allocated and not available to everybody.
So my company choosed to contribute to a private health care scheme in order that I can obtain treatment at a time that is convenient earlier than the state can provide. I pay for that at a rate determined by age, medical history and various other parameters. In addition I have to pay higher rate tax, NI contributions and my company also has to pay NI contributions on the premiums.
In effect, I get zero from the state in terms of health care, yet I pay tax and further contributions to the state healthcare system for providing my own, even though I have lessened the load on the state system. Clearly this is a nonsense.
I have no problem with contributing to the healthcare of others, but would much prefer to see it provisioned in a less wasteful way. I would also like to have something back from the state by way of vouchers to "spend" on healthcare and am quite happy if that is on a flat basis available to all equitably. I'm not even arguing that I should get more vouchers or more expensive ones because I have put more money into the system - everybody gets the same.
The difference is that I would like to be able to use those vouchers at an NHS hospital if I am happy with the service I can get there, or if I choose to add a top up from private insurance, or even simply to pay and have treatment at a private hospital, then I should be able to do that.
The less well off still have the state safety net and those who want to spend their income on healthcare over and above what the state provides can elect to do so, thus further unburdening the demand on the state system.
The point is that there should be an element of choice and I should be able to add to what the state provides if I want to do so, not forced into paying more than twice.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Various people have written on the NHS. I think that what we all know is that if faced with a life threatening emergency, the system works, on the whole, extremely well. Where it falls down is in day to day organisation. Delays of 2-3 months for an ultrasound scan are common and unnecessary. The same service can be purchased via the private sector for the next day. Frequently from the same place. The problems are IMO largely being caused by political obsessions with waiting lists and reporting numbers. Traditionally, the local doctors surgery, saw any patient who appeared that day, that way the major problems came to light very quickly. Nowadays a wait of up to a week to see a doctor is not unknown, and to see a specialist quack takes months. My local hospital has a reported missed appointment rate of 1 in 6. If the numbers are true. I have my doubts.
Anyway for those advocates of private medicine, I can offer the following examples of not best practice. 1) A relative goes for a back examination. After examination, without authorisation, the specialist decides to inject 2 ampoules of steroids into the spine. The relative never works again.
2) A friend has a prostate operation done privately. After 10 years, he is still in pain and being treated by the NHS. 3) A relative in the USA booked a hospital and surgeon for a Caesarean operation on the 1st October last. She went for a check up the day before and there was no record of the operation or surgeon being booked! They of course had a computer! I must say however, that the hospital did run around like headless chickens the next day to enable the birth to take place on the planned day, albeit somewhat late.I do know of other cases where the private sector has done a very good job, better than the NHS, but there is a lot of luck in the equation.
The present system in the private and public sectors of the UK,where it takes 5 visits to various doctors before any worthwhile testing is done is a recipe for inefficiency. We need much higher levels of capital investment in testing facilities rather than more people in the system.
Regards Capitol
In message , IMM writes
Was that laying on of hands or just a standard miracle?
< snip tripe >
You were.
I liked the laying of hands.
I know precisely what I was saying, thanks.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
So did Onan apparently, but it got him into trouble.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Throwing money at testing facilities, like anywhere else, isn't going to solve the problem.
It needs a structured management approach - where MPs don't get to waste everyone's time by requesting stupid measurement criteria to line their own political nest.
PoP
If you really must use the email address provided with my newsreader please be aware that the email is processed with spamcop. As a result your email to me might be treated as spam!
The issue with BG is essentially that it remains staffed with people and a culture with a public sector service mentality and all of its worst aspects. There is an enormous difference between taking something in the public sector and privatising it and with an organisation that has always operated in the private sector. BG is broken because of the former.
The NHS is broken because of the fundamental outdated notion that healthcare should be "free" at the point of delivery. Of course it is far from free, with huge sums of money going into it, a massive bureaucracy and inefficiency throughout. This must be especially frustrating fro the dedicated, skilled and underpaid clinical staff who can't get the resources that they need because it is being wasted on administration of this huge monster.
With BG, I can fortunately shop elsewhere. With the NHS, I pay huge sums into it and so does my employer. In order to get the service required, my employer has to pay for private health cover. That is then taxed at highest marginal rate and additional NI contributions levied on top of that, even though, in effect, I am not using the NHS services. I don't have an issue with the clinical abilities of NHS medical staff, but I have a big issue with paying vast sums of money into something that is not delivering the goods and is making prioritising decisions on my medical treatment outside my control. This is unacceptable.
All that I have suggested is that individuals should receive healthcare vouchers which they can "spend" at face value at an NHS facility if they are happy with the service it provides and that those who wish to shop elsewhere through private insurance or simply payment can do so by taking their vouchers and topping them up.. Ultimately, I think that the NHS should be dismantled and replaced with a far simpler and more efficient system, but this would do for a start.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
Perhaps better equipment/a quieter listening environment? I wasn't listening at high level - just about the level speech would normally be.
I'm just amazed I've not got a definitive answer. You can to most things - eventually.
In article , Andy Hall writes
that's way too good an idea for the morons who run the country to realise. When U get into power then please extend that to education as well:-)))
Make that a couple of weeks round these parts!...
Well, GPs aren't actually part of the NHS - their main income may indeed come from them, but they are self employed. Nor, apart from in some rural areas, are you restricted to just the one - in most towns you'll have a choice. So this sorts of drive a horse and cart through the theory that it's the NHS 'monopoly' that causes waiting lists.
That would be the other very obvious target,.
.andy
To email, substitute .nospam with .gl
"tony sayer" wrote | >Traditionally, the local doctors surgery, saw any patient who | >appeared that day, that way the major problems came to light | >very quickly. Nowadays a wait of up to a week to see a doctor | >is not unknown, | Make that a couple of weeks round these parts!...
Last time I had Something Sore I phoned the Dr in the morning, got an almost immediate telephone consultation, was asked to come into the surgery later that morning, and got an x-ray that afternoon.
Things do seem to have improved in that regard in the last few years; I can remember thinking that there was no point in waiting a week for an appt as by that time I'd be either better or deid.
What always puzzles me is why the receptionist asks "is it medically urgent?". How the f'ck am I supposed to know?
Owain
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.